Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the signal source, filtering (loss-forensics, category blocking), and that it is a read-only query returning BUY signals. It mentions premium pricing but not implementation details. Overall transparent for a signal tool, though cost details are vague.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filtering criteria and row description. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the columns in each row (trader, market title, side, price, size, category, suggested edge), making the return format clear. It also explains the premium nuance. For a tool with 3 optional parameters, this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (hours, limit, includeBlocked). The tool description adds context about blocked categories and the nature of signals but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns 'Live Polymarket copy-trading signals' from a specific watchlist filtered by category and time, with explicit detail on excluded categories and row structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'polymarket_top_traders' and 'polymarket_edge' by focusing on signals rather than traders or raw edge.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for automated trading ('bot-grade signals') and notes it is premium, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'polymarket_edge' or 'polymarket_top_traders'. The context of exclusion of certain categories provides some guidance, but lack of explicit comparison prevents a higher score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.